Concepts of national character and mentality. The concept of the mentality of the people as a special object of study in Russian and foreign scientific literature Depends on the characteristics of the country and its mentality

“Mentality” is a set of habits and social attitudes. You weren't born with it at all. Even within the same country, the mentality differs depending on the area. Compare the capital and regions.

Russians abroad

Russian children, moving abroad, even living in a family of two parents born in Russia, become 100% local in their views and principles of life. Children are flexible and do not cling to dogmas, but simply live in accordance with the new social environment.

Believe me, you yourself will be glad not to run around in heels and not spend a lot of money on outfits and salons, but to travel the world and enjoy life and new sensations instead of constantly trying to impress others. This part of the Russian female “mentality” has completely disappeared from our ladies over the years abroad.

In the same way, you will get used to smiling almost always, apologizing if someone steps on your foot (your foot is in the wrong place) and not visiting without an invitation. Learn to value your sensations and feelings instead of the eternal desire to please others and fit yourself into general standards.

That is, adapt to a new mentality under the motto “Enjoy!”

When you go to live abroad, you will be glad to leave your heels on the shelf in the closet and wear comfortable clothes and shoes.

They are constantly trying to drum into us that Western people supposedly have a “different mentality.”

It gets to the point that some of our people quite sincerely believe that Western girls love a career more than a family, do not want children, and only dream of working more.

Well, seriously, think about it: how many people do you know who want to work instead of have fun? And in the West there are also very few of them, especially among women.

• The basis of the Western mentality is concentrated in the word “enjoy” (enjoy).

Western people strive to enjoy life at all costs. It is in order to enjoy life more that they work, because this way they can earn more money and be able to buy more pleasant benefits (food, housing, travel).

• The second principle of Western mentality: do not interfere with the enjoyment of others.

That is why Western people treat each other attentively and kindly and try to make sure that their own pleasure does not interfere with those around them. If it is legal and not prohibited by law, do whatever you want, no one will say a word to you. Your right.

• The third cornerstone of the Western mentality: compliance with laws and regulations.

Our emigrants and those living in Western countries always notice this point: everything is done in order, according to the rules. Compliance with the rules ensures peace and order. If prostitution is legal in a country (as in Australia, for example), then no one will say a word to you if you choose this career.

That, in principle, is all the basics of the mentality of foreigners! Is something difficult? Not at all.

The basis of the Western mentality is to enjoy yourself and do not interfere with others’ enjoyment.

Tolerance

A recent addition to the Westernized mentality is a tolerant (“tolerant”) attitude toward people who look, think, or live differently, without judgment or persecution. In general, this is a continuation of the same principle “don’t interfere with others’ enjoyment.”

If previously condemnation of those who live differently was welcomed, now it is considered not only bad manners and bad upbringing, but also a criminal offense if you voiced it (discrimination).

Therefore, the attitude towards immigrants in Western countries today is completely different than 30-40 years ago.

Which means that Russians abroad are not persecuted or condemned at all, but are treated exactly the same as Greeks, Italians or Chinese - that is, they look at your personal value as a person, and not at all on how you dress or where you were born .

The mentality of peoples and their role in the history of Russia

Vladimir I. Andreev

Russia, Saint-Petersburg

December 20, 2010

Realizing that he was touching on the sensitive topic of interethnic relations, the author sought to analyze the issues under consideration as accurately and objectively as possible. But, as they say, facts are stubborn things and when a lot of them accumulate, quantity naturally turns into quality. In the same way, individual facts, but collected into a single system, form conclusions that become almost impossible to refute. For almost two decades we have seen a small, but aggressive and insidious minority - the newly-minted “revolutionaries”, having seized power in the country, continue to plunder Russia. First they robbed the common people, depriving them of all their savings, and then they began to destroy the country itself. Having thievesly seized the national wealth created over decades by the entire people, and the natural resources conquered by our ancestors from the harsh nature, they began to divide them among themselves and sell them to the “West” wholesale and in retail. Thus, with funds from the sale of property stolen from the people abroad, super-rich people appeared - billionaire oligarchs, mostly all from “passionate” foreigners. They began the destruction of the country according to a clear plan, apparently developed in advance and not “in the kitchens of dissidents.” You can feel the “hand” and style of a serious organization in them. Starting with the economic destruction of the country, they then moved on to the ideological destruction of the morality of the people, through propaganda in all types of media of the “Western”, “free” way of life, which in fact turned out to be depraved and immoral - a typical “feast during the plague”. This is what the current “economic” crisis has confirmed, although this is not a crisis of the economy, but of the capitalist system. Now it has become clear even to the supporters and apologists of “perestroika” that “they” “dumped” us, as they usually say in the current “democratic” jargon. Therefore, it is time for us to think and understand: How and why it happened that we, Russians and other indigenous peoples of Russia, became outcasts and beggars in our country. And the newly-minted “masters of life”, all these immoral foreigners, having robbed the common people “to the bone”, began to call themselves “gentlemen”, and us with contemptuous and humiliating nicknames “scoops”. Should we continue to put up with such chaos? So let's try to figure out what is the reason for this incident? When we lived under Socialism, albeit not richly, but calmly and confidently for our future, we, for the most part, rarely thought about where the funds for public goods, for the social benefits that we had, came from. for defense and development. We just knew that it had to be this way and were sure that it would always be this way, because The system that worked was the Socialist State. Over the decades of Soviet power, the people have become accustomed to the fact that all issues of our life are resolved according to plans that are developed and implemented by the government. And power, it is power. She must show both her will and her strength. In the “West,” as we knew, “power” belongs to “capital,” and therefore it protects its interests. There were no capitalists in our country, and therefore everyone believed that our government reflected the interests of the people. This understanding of power in the USSR provided us with peace of mind, faith in its justice and, ultimately, in the reasonableness of the decisions made by the government. This demonstrated the character or “mentality” of the Russian people as a state-forming nation that ensured the stability of a multinational state. Ordinary citizens, doing their usual work, have little interest in how our government is built and who represents it. Therefore, elections were perceived not as some kind of real choice, but rather as some kind of state or civil obligation to “vote.” At the same time, it was always assumed that everything would continue in the same way as it had before. Is it good or bad? The question is far from clear-cut, as our home-grown “democrats” present it, arguing that the people were thereby deprived of freedom and democratic rights. Of course, what was built in the USSR was far from the idea of ​​ideal Socialism in accordance with the theoretical understanding of the meaning of this concept. And in a philosophical sense, there apparently were many deviations from the theory. But, in real, practical Socialism, which was built in the USSR, no one went hungry, everyone had a roof over their head, no one suffered from unemployment, people were more friendly to each other, and interpersonal relationships were incomparably higher than in any other the country of “market economy” and “Western democracy”. There was also no complete equality or “equalization,” as the Judaizers of Socialism contemptuously talk about it. But there were no hungry and homeless people (like now), no rich people who had stolen billions, who had dual citizenship, houses and apartments in Russia, and villas in expensive foreign resorts. Under socialism, the majority of the people were engaged in concrete work, and not in political chatter. Everyone had to work, and an honest worker who worked well and had high qualifications could live quite decently. Of course, there were no excesses, but an honest worker had everything necessary for a normal life. “Mercedes” and other “foreign cars” were sparse, but public transport worked properly, on which you could get wherever you wanted, “for pennies.” Of course, it was also clearly not enough, although in principle, the planned system of the economy correctly set priorities for the development of public transport, which was also important for society as a whole. more economical And less harmful In terms of ecology. We just didn't have enough time for normal development. We have been fighting world capital outside the country for too long and have not noticed how this same capital has built a nest in our native country. While the bulk of the working people worked honestly and conscientiously for the benefit of the state, a small part of society, primarily representatives of the so-called “passionary” people and people from the Southern regions, due to the peculiarities of their mentality (as will be shown below), was dissatisfied with our stable (from their point of view - conservative) life. They have long been engaged in the “left” and “shadow” economy, having accumulated decent funds. But they could not implement them in the socialist system. Let us recall the examples of A. Koreiko and Ostap Bender in the famous novel “Golden Tele-no-k”. The socialist system considered speculation and underground economic activity to be contrary to the interests of the state and criminally punishable. That’s why all these newly-minted underground “Benders” and “Koreans,” as well as the restless “ex-tremist revolutionaries,” rejected socialism. They all dreamed of making significant changes in our state system in order to “freely” realize their thieving and fraudulent inclinations. This was the cunning and insidious internal enemy of Socialism. And the mistake of the country's leadership was that they did not appreciate this danger. Although, perhaps, some people then consciously did not want to see this, since the top of the government was also stuffed with these same “passions” and to a large extent had already degenerated. Almost all children of leading government figures found employment in the structures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. Regularly visiting and living abroad for a long time, they gradually not only got used to the “Western” way of life, but also absorbed its “values.” Moving to the highest echelons of power, they became accomplices of our internal “revolutionary democrats”. As a result, Soviet power began to rot “from the top,” which was a consequence of the old mistake of the party leadership - rejection of criticism and the absence of political opposition - the opposition. So one of the reasons for our troubles was that the country’s leaders, wittingly or unwittingly, themselves contributed to its destruction. But there was another reason - the influence of external forces. Or, more precisely, our internal enemies - the “fifth column”, which implemented the plans of external forces. Being inside Russia, and hiding behind the interests of the people, they began to mislead them with various provocative ideas that all our troubles are due to the lack of freedom and public (in their words - no one's) property. Now, if everyone becomes an owner and starts their own “own business,” then everyone will be fine. Let's remember Chubais' tales about two Volgas for one voucher. Now, seeing how the national economy is being deliberately ruined and the young generation of the country - our future - is being corrupted, it becomes clear how deeply thought out the program for the development of the state, the construction of Socialism and the new society of the country was. Trying to understand the causes and find the origins of the destructive process, analyzing events and trends in their development, the author gradually came to the conclusion that the main cause of all our troubles and the current paradoxical situation is the root the difference in life interests and worldviews or “mentalities” of the indigenous peoples of Russia and the “aliens” - “foreigners”. Where did this process of divergence of interests begin and how did it develop? Remembering the terrible consequences of the last war, and knowing about the threats “from overseas” to launch a nuclear strike on the USSR, state leaders and ordinary people understood the situation and, professing the principle “so that there is no war,” they were patient with difficulties peaceful life, believing that this is a temporary phenomenon. Therefore, when the so-called “perestroika” program was proclaimed, ordinary people, believing that this was being done in the interests of the people, supported these plans. But it turned out that the “perestroika” was not conceived by our leaders, and its implementation was entrusted to cunning and insidious rogues. And then it turned out that both “perestroika” and its “reforms” were intended for completely different purposes. The “reformers” argued that when every citizen becomes an owner and begins “his own business,” then both the state and the people will begin to live richly and happily. In this statement, at a minimum, there was a misconception or misunderstanding of the essence of the process. But, most likely, an outright lie. Experts have long established that no more than 5-7% of people are able to effectively engage in independent entrepreneurship. The bulk of the people, by definition, are incapable of this. Most people prefer to have a normal, stable job with decent earnings and the opportunity to relax in their free time, rather than catch the “blue bird of happiness” by monitoring where the “dollar exchange rate” is going and trends on world exchanges. Therefore, pushing the common people onto the path of “entrepreneurship,” the “reformers” deliberately misled them by introducing two destructive strategies: - Firstly, disrupted normal planned social production, provoking people to create small private enterprises on the basis of workshops, sites and departments of large state enterprises, which ultimately led to the collapse of the entire industry; - Secondly By directing the common man to create private enterprises, for which he was not ready either morally, organizationally, or economically, they doomed him to a miserable existence. What do we have as a result? Thousands of Russian “shuttle traders” traveling around the world with carts of imported junk and crowds of “guest workers” - our former “brothers” from the same fraternal republics of the former united country - the USSR. Taking advantage of the weakness of human nature, with the promise of an easy and rich life with “freedom” and market relations, they led the country to collapse. It is no coincidence that the Christian commandments and the letters of the apostles emphasize that man is weak in spirit and often sinful. Therefore, so that human weaknesses do not defeat his “divine destiny”, man needs moral shackles and spiritual guidance. Complete freedom without restrictions destroys a weak-spirited person. This has been known to mankind for thousands of years, and smart rulers, creating their states and empires, used power wisely and effectively, within the limits of their strength and historical capabilities of that time. If this system is violated and everyone is given complete freedom of action, then such a people (although it will no longer be a people, but a crowd) will themselves destroy everything good that was created before. It was this mission of provocateurs and initiators of the collapse of the country that our “liberal democrats” carried out. As long as there was a system of strict “sovereign” control in the country, as in old Russia, and then “party” control in the USSR, society and the state developed normally. But the newly-minted “enlightenment democrats,” advocating for “individual freedom,” reduced to zero the idea of ​​the responsibility of the ordinary person and citizen to society and the state. And what did this lead to in our Russia? In 1917 - to defeat in the war and the subsequent revolution. In the 1990s - to the collapse of the USSR, after which the entire society in today's “democratic” Russia began to turn into an anarchic crowd, and “state power” into a jungle. Why do the indigenous inhabitants of Russia and the new arrivals - foreigners - present the goals and methods of building society and the state differently? As the analysis shows, the main reason is the fundamental differences in the mentalities of these peoples. The majority of the indigenous peoples of Russia have always lived and strive to live according to the traditions of their ancestors, when issues were resolved “by the whole world,” as in a large family, where everyone felt like a part of the whole. Previously, it was a large peasant family, a rural community, then a collective farm and, finally, the state. Guided by the idea that you are not alone, and not on your own, but a member of some community, no one tried to live contrary to the opinion of the majority. This was the essence of our “conciliar” idea of ​​the meaning of life. This is reflected in our folk sayings and parables. But the “liberal democrats”, having come to power, did everything in order, first of all, to destroy the family, and after it the Russian state, which was also always built and lived as a large family of different nations. Our “liberals” wanted everything in Russia to become like “in the West”, where there is “complete personal freedom” and the principle “Everyone for himself, one God for all” has long been in effect. But let’s not mention God “in vain,” since every “individual” in the West has a completely different goal. Not at all charitable, but selfish and greedy, like the animals in the jungle. Such a “society,” or more precisely, a gathering of individuals, is a direct path to the destruction of everything that is still commonly called civilization and the culture of Homo sapiens. This is the path to the complete degradation of humanity. But do we need such a path? To understand why the peoples of Russia and the “alien aliens” have such diametrically opposed ideas about the purpose and meaning of life, let’s look and compare the mentalities of the two peoples of Russia: Russian and Jewish. Having identified the differences, we will determine their role in the affairs and results of the events of recent decades. To begin with, let’s define what the essence of mentality is: what determines it, how it is formed and what it influences. Mentality - as a worldview of a certain community of people, is a synthesis of the basic characteristics of a person: intelligence and emotionality in relation to ideology or national philosophy. Depending on the correlation of these components, especially on the nature of ideology, the mentalities of different peoples have significant differences. Intelligence is a certain characteristic that reflects the ability to formulate problems, understand their essence, analyze facts and circumstances, establish their relationship, determine and find fundamental solutions, that is, the ability for cognitive and creative activity. Emotionality, or otherwise, temperament, is the degree of reactivity of individuals to standard situations or “irritants”. Ideology, or creed (religion) is a national philosophy that reflects both the relationships of individual members of a community among themselves and with representatives of other communities. The formation of mentality is, first of all, influenced by the conditions and way of life of people, that is, the conditions of existence of the entire community of a given people. Historical and demographic factors in the life of human communities have been studied in detail for a long time. But there are still some reasons and factors that have not yet been adequately assessed when studying this issue. We are talking about the influence of the climate factor, or more precisely, the influence of solar radiation on humans. It has long been noted that the “southern” peoples, and in Russia these are “persons of Caucasian nationality”, are more temperamental and emotional than the indigenous “northern” peoples. Naturally, mentality also depends on the climatic conditions of the region of the Earth where a given people or nation was formed. It is known that most chemical processes in nature accelerate with increasing temperature. Apparently, the same thing happens in physiology. The acceleration of biochemical reactions in the body, in turn, causes a more intense metabolic process, and the activity of the entire nervous system that controls processes in the body increases. Naturally, all this is reflected in the activity of the brain. Since the overall intensity of signal exchange in the body’s nervous system increases, the spontaneous activity (random failures) of excited neuronal structures of various functional systems also increases. But it is known that with such stimulation of the nervous system, the release of adrenaline is stimulated in the body. As a result, the activity of the motor organs is initiated. A person always strives to do something (the itch of activity and fussiness). But the increased spontaneous activity of neural structures affects not only motor activity, but also the entire activity of the brain, stimulating emotional, initiative and creative ways -personality. After all, any creativity carries an element of fantasy. What is fantasia? This is the superposition of random combinations of signals from the spontaneous activity of excited parts of the nervous system on signals circulating in the neural circuits of the brain involved in thought -telial activity. These random spontaneous signals change the real analyzed images and situations, which are transformed, acquiring a new look, receiving different assessments and forming new conclusions. As a result, the activities of such individuals begin to show excessive emotion, unpredictability and fantasy, which can be very useful when solving creative problems, creating the phenomena “ intuition", "nai-tiya" and "pro---vision". In other words, the creative ability of an individual obviously directly depends on the intensity of the spontaneous activity of neurons in the brain. All this is manifested in higher general activity and initiative of individuals with such features of the intellectual activity of the brain. But not everything is so smooth and simple in assessing intelligence. If we understand intelligence more broadly, not only as the ability to create, i.e. put forward new ideas, but also the ability to analyze them calmly, impartially and objectively, taking into account all the factors, opinions, assessments and arguments of opponents, then the increased intensity of spontaneous activity Brain capacity is good only within certain limits. Too little activity (suppressed reaction) is imbecility, idiocy - a person devoid of any initiative and desires. Too much activity (overexcitement, obsession) - a self-confident person who does not recognize anyone else’s points of view. In the extreme, this is a maniac, mentally unstable or even a sick person, incapable of realistically and correctly assessing both the situation and the results of the measures taken actions. The boundaries between genius and psychopathy from increased activity of brain neurons, as is known, have not yet been defined, so it is clear that this is a “double-edged sword,” like everything in nature. As an aside, you can note that the same effect of increased emotionality and spontaneous activity of brain neurons is caused by the intake of alcohol, drugs and other “stimulants” of various natures. Maybe this is why the “northern” people love strong drinks, in order to somehow compensate for the lack of natural activity stimulants. And for some “creative personalities”, this often becomes simply necessary for constant maintenance of vitality and creative activity, unfortunately, as a rule, with a sad ending. So what is the conclusion? Increased activity can really be useful when individual work, especially of a creative nature, is required. Therefore, such individuals are prone to creative activity and entrepreneurialism, as a way of self-affirmation and satisfaction of their irrepressible egoism. But, when it is necessary to carry out large-scale planned work that requires in-depth analysis, unification of opinions and efforts of a large team of performers, concentration and significant the deadline for its implementation, such individual activity (haste, fussiness) is not always useful, and often harmful. Therefore, individuals with a calm and balanced mentality, prone to unhurried, serious analysis and balanced decisions, are more prone to collective work in practical life. Being balanced and cold-blooded, they more easily accept both other people's negative opinions (criticism) and authority from above. That is why the majority of the people of Russia prefer collective work. Consequently, with a correct understanding of the mentality of a particular people and individuals, many issues of the organization of society can be resolved more reasonably and without excesses. For example, if in every workable team there can be (and it is desirable that there would be) personalities of all types, then the real leader of the team should only be an individual ness with moderate spontaneous activity. And the more serious, global and responsible task the team faces, the more self-controlled and not impulsive the leader should be. A temperamental bearer of emotional intelligence is generally not suitable for such roles, as well as for roles associated with influencing large masses of people, due to his imbalance and the possibility of unwanted arousal of people. But, unfortunately, we often promoted people to leadership positions who were good at talking, but not at doing. That’s why various “talkers” came to power, sometimes lovers of “new thinking” (although its complete absence was later revealed), sometimes throwing out all sorts of “squiggles” instead of real solutions to improve life and restore order in the country. Let us now consider the nature of mentality. As we were taught in universities of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, all phenomena and events that occur in our lives must be studied in the context of a dialectical understanding of history. The dialectical approach to the study of historical processes showed that the type of mentality depends not only on geopolitical, demographic and historical conditions, but also on the natural and climatic characteristics of the region of the Earth where it has formed. If we look at the map of the distribution of early civilizations on Earth, and then at the map of modern “hot spots” where extremism and terrorism never subside, we will see that they practically coincide. This is the Mediterranean basin (North Africa, South Europe, the Middle East), this is the Middle East (Persian Gulf), this is Indo-China, this is the Caribbean region and the tropical zone of Latin America. Common sense tells us that these coincidences are not accidental. The current explanation that “since these places are densely populated, and their population is varied, then conflicts there are inevitable” is too simple and, apparently, incomplete. Yes, this undoubtedly takes place, but is this the only reason? For example, there is no data on conflicts between tribes or nationalities of the North. It is obvious that the mentality of the “northern” peoples is completely different. The understanding that climatic conditions clearly influence the emotional and intellectual activity of the individual, forming the corresponding mentality, is confirmed by all the life experiences of peoples living in regions with different climatic conditions and, accordingly, with different solar activity. We have already talked about the “hot” southern peoples. For contrast, we note that the peoples living in the northern regions of Europe have a cold-blooded, balanced mentality, which is confirmed by the constant political stability in such European countries as Sweden, Norway, Finland , Denmark, where there have almost never been conflicts between nations. Also among the “northern” peoples of Asia and America. Naturally, everything that has been said applies, first of all, to character traits, as subconsciously innate. When real living conditions differ from those in which his ancestors lived, the subconscious generic will still have an effect. For example, if a person lives in the North, and his ancestors lived in the South, then his temperament and mentality will be somewhat softened by the influence of the climate, but still his subconscious part will break through. And, on the contrary, “northerners” with a more “inert” mentality and in the South live according to their habits and customs, and therefore at critical moments of history and social cataclysms, adapting more slowly to rapidly changing conditions, they often find themselves in a disastrous situation -nii.

1. History of the North Caucasus in printed publications. Bibliographic reference

   Directory

   - 1 . - No. 39. The most important laws and orders for 189 -1893. – St. Petersburg, 1894. Dedyulin S.A. Disadvantages of the procedure for the alienation of land for state and public needs (Appendix to the Collection of Legislation on the alienation of land).

2. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 20th century in 3 books (1)

   Book

   Third book in the series. “The History of Russia of the 20th Century” is another or protracted “failure” in the history of mankind or another desperate attempt to defend one’s culture, territory, mentality, one’s faith as an integral element

3. Discipline program History of Entrepreneurship for direction 080500. 62 “Management” bachelor’s preparation Author of the program

   Discipline program

   This academic discipline program establishes the minimum requirements for the student’s knowledge and skills and determines the content and types of training sessions and reporting.

The concepts of mentality and mentality have become quite widespread in domestic scientific and journalistic literature and the media since the late 80s of the 20th century, and have become an integral part of the vocabulary of the modern Russian language. It should be noted that almost none of the scientists distinguished between the concepts of mentality and mentality, using for this purpose such words from Western European languages ​​as mentality (English), mentalete (French), mentalitat (German). A similar situation is observed in modern domestic and foreign humanities.

The concept of mentality, which has rapidly entered everyday and scientific speech, gravitates towards various branches of humanities. At the same time, in the literature one can find the use of synonyms for the categories mentality and mentality (which is quite acceptable given the insufficient philosophical and methodological development of the problem).

“Mentality is a system of views, tasks and their solutions, implicit attitudes, value orientations, conclusions, behavior patterns, which is entrenched in the popular consciousness, in cultural stereotypes; mentality is what distinguishes some communities from others.”

In the Russian language dictionary S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. The Swedish mentality is assessed as a “bookish” concept and is defined as “comprehension of the world, primarily with the help of images colored by emotional and value orientations, closely related to traditions, mood, feelings.” Thus, we are talking not so much about the systemic nature of mentality, but rather about a certain set of various phenomena of spiritual life included in this concept.

The term mentality is defined quite uniquely in English dictionaries. For example, the well-known Webster's dictionary defines mentality as mental capacity, that is, as mental ability, or as mental power, as mental strength, power, as mental outlook, that is, a mental view, mental perspective, which can also be understood as a worldview. The meaning of this term is also given as a state of mind - a state of mind.

We find a similar definition in S.G. Ter-Minasova: “the concept of mentality includes a mindset, attitude, worldview, psychology. In other words, mentality is the mental and spiritual disposition of both an individual and society as a whole. Mentality - (degree of) intellectual power; mind, disposition, character (mentality - level of intellectual capabilities, mindset, mood, character)".

Let us list the properties of mentality that we have identified from various sources:

1. Mentality includes thinking.

2. Mentality means something common that underlies the conscious and unconscious, logical and emotional, i.e. a deep and therefore difficult to fix source of thinking, ideology and faith, feelings and emotions.

3. One of the aspects of mentality is norms of behavior.

Mentality is not a fashionable concept, but a scientific category that reflects a certain phenomenon rooted in the depths of people's life. In an effort to clarify the concept, many authors use very ambiguous or even metaphorical descriptions, attributing them either to mentality or to mentality.

It should be noted that with all the diversity and variety of definitions of what mentality is and what it is not, the following remark has not lost its relevance: when they want to explain something inexplicable, as if floating in the air, but objectively existing, they say: “This is our mentality"; when they don’t want to explain something, they also find an excuse in mentality.

As for the unambiguous interpretation of the concept, for each area of ​​knowledge it opens with a new, invisible facet. Indeed, even the question of the priority of introducing the term mentality into scientific circulation turns out to be problematic. The literature does not reveal a clear distinction between the concepts of mentality and mentality. It’s just that some authors use the first concept, others use the second. So, postulating the difference in concepts, let us define what mentality and mentality are.

From the history of science it is known that the concept of mentality was proposed by Lévy-Bruhl, who used it to describe the special thinking of savages. Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, borrowing this concept from Lévy-Bruhl, used it to denote the general state of mind, mindset, collective psychology, mental tools, psychological equipment of people belonging to the same culture, members of the same society. The general mentality gives them the opportunity to perceive and understand their natural and social environment and themselves in their own way.

This approach allows us to give a very broad interpretation of the category of mentality and use it to designate any more or less stable set of ideas about the world. However, it is precisely the picture of the world that includes ideas about the individual and his relationship to society, about freedom, equality, honor, good and evil, about law and labor, about family and sexual relations, about the course of history and the value of time, about the relationship between new and old, about death and the soul (the picture of the world is, in principle, inexhaustible), it is this picture of the world, inherited from previous generations and certainly changing in the process of social practice, that underlies human behavior.

In a certain sense, the category of mentality can be identified with the category of subconscious spirituality. Acting as the core of the individual’s semantic sphere, mentality is at the same time “a system of interconnected universals embedded in the foundation of culture, which are forms of storage and transmission of fundamental ideas about the world and the social experience of life in this world.”

By mentality we also understand “the historically established long-term intelligible unity of the most stable ideas, stereotypes and archetypes, manifested at conscious and unconscious levels in the form of a special way of thinking, attitude and worldview, and having an axiological, emotional and behavioral embodiment.”

The elements that make up the mentality do not simply exist in their heterogeneity, but merge into a kind of spiritual alloy. “Mentality embodies that common ground that underlies the conscious and unconscious, rational and emotional, social and individual, thinking and behavior, faith and way of life. Mentality is manifested in positions, value orientations, ideological and behavioral stereotypes, historical traditions, the image and way of life of people, in language.”

On the one hand, mentality determines our preferences (behavioral, value, normative), on the other hand, it acts as the basis for a person’s repulsion from everything that is alien to him and as the basis for rejection of certain standards of behavior and ideas. We can say that mentality is a kind of vertical cross-section of our spiritual and mental world, the study of which is a search for an answer to the question “why am I like this?”

In Russian reference publications of recent years on socio-political sciences, there is no scientific definition of the concept of mentality. Meanwhile, this word is becoming increasingly widespread, actively gaining its place in sociology, political science, social anthropology, journalism and computer science, that is, it is used in various fields of human knowledge. In this case, in some cases the concept of mentality is used, in others mentality.

The difference between these terms, according to some authors, is that mentality has a universal universal meaning, and mentality can relate to various social spheres and historical times.

The philosophical method of interpretation predetermines mentality not only as “a type of structure of consciousness, world perception, understanding, as a way of viewing the world,” but also as “rationally practical capacity, as a result of which cultural phenomena arise.”

The philosophically significant essence of mentality is manifested in its deep content as a way of thinking, cognition, and understanding, on the basis of which certain sociocultural creative activities are built.

The definition of mentality from the perspective of historical psychology is as follows: “mentality is the totality of all characteristics that distinguish the mind, the way of thinking of one person from another.” According to followers of this trend, the image or style of thinking is different among different peoples. Each nation has its own ideas about the individual and his relationship to society, about freedom, about equality, honor, good and evil, about the course of history, etc.

The sociocultural approach interprets mentality as “a set of ideas, views, and feelings of community among people of a certain era, geographic area and social environment that influence historical and sociocultural processes.” In other words, mentality is a certain collective characteristic of people living in a separate culture, which allows us to describe the uniqueness of these people’s vision of the world around them and explain the specifics of their response to it.

In modern Russian theoretical studies of problems of mentality, there are quite interesting paradoxes. So, for example, having devoted an entire section of a textbook on cultural studies to “mentality as a type of culture,” P.S. Gurevich does not even attempt to consider in detail the meaning of this concept, making only some references to other researchers. As a result of this approach, the very problem of mentality as a type of culture remains virtually unsolved.

One of the most important aspects of the term mentality is “the designation of a certain quality of the mind, the characteristics of actively manifested thinking.” It is the intense differences in the ability to think, understand and express one’s understanding that are inherent in mentality as a characteristic of human thinking and activity.

Among special studies centered on mentality, we note the work of V.V. Kolesov “Language and Mentality” (2004), which offers the following interpretation of the concept of mentality: “mentality in its characteristics is a naively holistic picture of the world in its value guidelines, existing for a long time, regardless of specific economic and political conditions, based on ethnic predispositions and historical traditions; mentality manifests itself in the feeling, mind and will of each individual member of society on the basis of a common language and upbringing and is part of the people’s spiritual culture, which creates the ethno-mental space of the people in the given territory of their existence.”

Specialist in the field of linguistic and cultural studies A.K. Michalskaya, considers the terms mentality, mentality and soul of the people as synonyms and believes that their meaning is “the way of thinking of an individual or social group, their inherent spirituality, mindset, worldview.”

For the ethnologist A.P. Sadokhin’s mentality also seems to be identical to the national character (the soul of the people), and also to the mental makeup of the ethnic group. At the same time, mentality for him is also “a relatively integral set of thoughts and beliefs that created a picture of the world and cemented the unity of a cultural tradition or any community.”

Let us turn to the concept of national mentality. National mentality is usually understood as “a way of thinking, a psychological mindset, characteristics of thinking,” as well as “a historically established, stable specific form of manifestation and functioning of social consciousness in the life of a certain national community of people.” Since an essential element of the national mentality is a reflection of real living conditions, the practice of communication with other peoples, the level of use of their social, moral and intellectual experience, it is clear that the concept of mentality intersects and is mixed with such concepts as national psychology and national character.

Developed historically and genetically, the mentality forms that spiritual and behavioral specificity that makes representatives of one nation different from representatives of other nations, and because of this it becomes an important factor in the self-identification of a particular community.

The mentality of the people always bears the stamp of the national, being associated with such concepts as national consciousness, national character, national spirit, etc. It is an expression of the specifics of national identity. A full acquaintance with any culture presupposes not only the study of the material components of this culture, not only knowledge of its historical, geographical and economic determinants, but also an attempt to penetrate into the way of thinking of a nation, an attempt to look at the world through the eyes of native speakers of this culture. The national mentality manifests itself in habits, customs passed on from generation to generation, and in norms of behavior.

The mentality is determined by the national, cultural, civilizational, geographical and socio-political characteristics of people’s lives and activities. Therefore, its study requires taking into account the influence of environmental conditions, everyday life, climate, traditions and other circumstances on people’s behavior.

According to E. Husserl, “no matter how hostile European nations are towards each other, they still have an internal kinship of spirit that permeates them and overcomes national differences.”

What is common brings people together, allows you to see and understand the uniqueness of culture and traditions, and predetermines a respectful attitude towards the state and its people.

Human culture, social behavior and thinking, as is known, are not able to exist without language and outside of language. Thinking and mental reactions contain both evaluative relationships embedded in them and the semantic orientations of activity corresponding to them.

“Mentality is hidden in behavior, assessments, manner of thinking and speaking. It cannot be learned or faked; it can only be “absorbed” along with the language that contains the worldview and codes of a given culture.”

Being a means of human communication and therefore social and national in nature, language cannot but bear the imprints of the peculiarities of the worldview, ethical and cultural values, as well as norms of behavior characteristic of a given linguistic community. Each national culture is the result of the manifest activity of the national mentality, since national culture does not exist outside the national mentality. All this is reflected in the vocabulary of the language, which is said a lot and often. The mentality we understand is part of folk culture.

Since the peculiarities of mentality include features of national character, a certain ethnic model of the surrounding reality, worldview and worldview, the specific behavior of representatives of the studied linguistic and cultural community, this is why we use such a category as national character to reveal the spiritual structure of society. S. M. Harutyunyan defines it as “a peculiar national flavor of feelings and emotions, way of thinking and actions, stable and national features of habits and traditions, formed under the influence of the conditions of material life, the characteristics of the historical development of a given nation and manifested in the specifics of its national culture.” A fairly widespread opinion about national character is that it is not a set of specific, idiosyncratic traits inherent only to a given nation, but a peculiar set of universal human traits. At the level of everyday consciousness, the existence of a national character in every people is beyond doubt and is, as it were, an axiom. This thought arises especially often during a stay, even the shortest, in a foreign ethnic environment. It strengthens the conviction that the people of this community are in many respects very different from ours: this is evidenced by the features of their life and way of life, sometimes even the appearance of people, their behavior, etc. National character turns out to be the key to explaining the life of the people, and even his stories.

“When it comes to the Russian national character, the first and immediate association is the soul, which is usually accompanied by a constant epithet: mysterious. The Russian soul seems mysterious to foreigners, who talk and write a lot about it - sometimes with admiration, sometimes with ridicule. The Russian word soul is much more widespread than the English soul and plays a huge role in the spiritual life of the Russian people. For the Russian people, for whom in the national system of values ​​spirituality, the soul, is the main, core concept that prevails over reason, intelligence, and common sense. The English-speaking world, on the contrary, has placed His Majesty Common Sense at the basis of its existence."

Thus, speaking about the mentality of a particular nation or people, we touch upon a complex, multi-layered set of mechanisms and methods of action that are closely related to the centuries-old culture of the people, its acquired and consolidated ways of responding to changes in the external world that determine the behavior of the nation.

In general, the concept of mentality includes the following content components:

way of life as a relatively independent system of basic forms of human life, social group, society, associated with the national structure, style, ritual, way of life, etc.;

the spiritual foundations of folk life, taken within a broad historical framework (origins in the form of historical memory, historical heritage as spiritual and moral potential, manifested in historical identification);

national psychology (national character).

We come to the following conclusions: firstly, mentality is a holistic picture of the world in its value guidelines, existing for a long time, regardless of specific economic and political conditions, based on ethnic predispositions and historical traditions; mentality manifests itself in the feeling, mind and will of each individual member of society on the basis of a common language and upbringing and is part of the people's spiritual culture, which creates the ethno-mental space of the people in the given territory of their existence; secondly, the national mentality is a way of thinking, a psychological mindset, characteristics of thinking; thirdly, national mentality is inextricably linked with national character, which is understood not only as a set of specific, unique traits inherent only to a given people, but also as a peculiar set of universal human traits.

Mentality- a stable set of mental, intellectual, emotional and cultural characteristics inherent in a certain ethnic group, nation, or nationality.

Mentality plays one of the key roles in shaping a person’s attitude and understanding of the world.

Mentality- unconsciously and automatically accepted attitudes, collective ideas contained in the consciousness of values, motives and patterns of behavior, stereotypes of reactions, common in general for the era and social group and underlying rationally constructed and reflected forms of social consciousness.

Mentality enters into the structure of a person’s individual psyche in the process of his introduction to a given culture and social environment. The process begins in early childhood with mastery of the national language, adaptation of everyday and social living conditions.

Mentality reflects a unique way of thinking that has developed among people throughout history as part of a social phenomenon of sociocultural reality.

Mental attitudes are usually perceived by a person as something unquestionable and natural, and he is not aware of why he thinks and acts this way and not otherwise.

Another, much more fundamental constant that determines a person’s thinking, character and worldview is his innate vector set, which does not depend on belonging to a particular ethnocultural environment.

Formation of mentality

The mentality is formed over generations, and it is advisable to consider its structure as consisting of a stable structure - the “core” and a more changeable “periphery”.

The core is formed under the influence of the geoenvironment, landscape and climate.

The more changeable structures of the periphery include language, traditions, religions, education, and everyday life.

Geopolitical factors can also have a great influence on the formation of the mental preconditions of the people.

In an effort to survive and come into balance with the environment, the selection of certain vector properties and abilities that are most in demand for the survival and adaptation of people in given environmental conditions naturally occurs.

All features, abilities and talents of a person are laid down and, as they develop, manifest themselves in accordance with their vector set. Accordingly, mentalities are composed of the values ​​of those vectors that mainly determine the survival of this social group on the landscape.

Types of mentalities

In total, there are four types of mentalities formed in certain natural conditions. Examples include the skin mentality in Western Europe and the United States, the anal mentality in Arab countries, the muscular mentality in Southeast Asia, and the unique dual urethral-muscular mentality in Russia and the countries of the former USSR. Features of local development and territorial distribution of mentalities are closely related to natural factors. The skin mentality is formed in territories with climatic and geographical conditions favorable for survival. Anal - in the mountains, muscular - in forests, urethral - in the steppes.

The formation of mentality should be viewed from a historical perspective.

The habitat of an ethnos today is often very different from the territories in which the formation of this ethnos and its characteristic mental characteristics took place. The habitat areas of an ethnic group change historically. Thus, the Russian ethnic group, which inhabited the territories of the western and southern parts of the East European Plain, is characterized by almost continuous expansion.

Skin mentality

A striking example of the skin mentality are the countries of Western Europe. The climate of these areas is mild and favorable for agriculture, which contributes to high productivity. The European landscape is rich in a variety of surface forms, the territories are limited by winding coastlines. To the people inhabiting these territories, the landscape persistently imposes a sense of border, limit, precise definition, distinctness and the every-minute, ubiquitous presence of a person with impressive signs of his hard and long-term work.

Favorable climate and high yields stimulate the invention of new technologies for harvesting. Surplus crops form the instinct of a private owner in a person, and also need protection from plunder. The skin mentality tends to regulate relationships with the help of general laws, which are based on the postulate “what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours.” The law, equal for all, acts as a protector and guarantor of the safety of private property, and its implementation is controlled by the relevant public order authorities. Profits tax is levied as payment for protection.

Today, the national character of Europeans gravitates towards life according to rules and laws that provide clear legal and personal freedoms. The value is to live in abundance, prosperity and comfort. The skin mentality is aimed at building a consumer society. The undeniable significance of the unique human life and the highest value of the interests of the individual are included in the structure of the skin mentality.

Anal mentality

The mountain environment is specific in that the people living in it were virtually deprived of the opportunity to change the landscape around them. As a result, the peoples inhabiting these territories were naturally at a lower stage of technological development and were more dependent on the natural environment. Often mountains are a serious obstacle to the penetration of other peoples through them and innovation along with them. Therefore, bearers of the mountain mentality are characterized by conservatism in relation to any kind of sociocultural innovations.

The local population is, as a rule, small, disparate groups of peoples. There are very few habitable territories in the mountains, which forced the proud mountaineers to be constantly ready to repel the invaders. For the same reason, mountaineers tend to feel a strong attachment to their land and “their” people. The conditions of isolation and isolation in which mountain peoples were formed were the reason for their hostility towards everything alien and intolerance both towards unwanted neighbors and towards their culture.

The process of self-identification among the highlanders occurs “by blood”: the highlanders attach extremely great importance to family ties and treat their parents and elders with great respect.

Conservatism, adherence to traditions, the value of family, a sense of blood kinship - these are exclusively anal vector values.

Muscle mentality

The muscular mentality develops mainly in the forests. It includes the values ​​of the muscle vector: physical strength, endurance, hard work and the ability to endure difficulties that determine survival in the harsh conditions of the wild forest.

For example, in Rus', the basis for survival was land freed from forest. Slash-and-burn agriculture in forest areas required hard labor and a large number of workers and was beyond the capabilities of one peasant family. There was practically no surplus harvest, so market relations developed extremely slowly (there was nothing to trade). Primitive agriculture in forests and harsh climatic conditions made it very difficult to conduct individual farming, forcing peasants to gather in communities, and contributed to the formation of collectivist principles.

The communal principle of survival is the basic unification of a group of people based on the basic needs of the body - eat, drink, breathe, sleep. Thus, people live in poverty, hand to mouth, but in extreme cohesion necessary for survival.

A muscular person derives satisfaction from prolonged hard physical labor and by nature has no ambitions or special claims beyond the provision of basic desires (eat, drink, breathe, sleep). In the muscle vector there is no feeling of being a separate unit from everyone else, i.e. there is no feeling of separateness of one’s “I” to the extent that it exists in other vectors. Instead of “I,” there is a feeling of being part of a collective “we.”

Urethral mentality

The urethral mentality is formed among steppe, nomadic peoples. Particularly relevant in this context is the geographic zone of the Great Eurasian Steppe, located in the climate zone of temperate latitudes. This is the only continuous strip of grassy deserts and steppes in the world suitable for nomadic pastoralists.

Examples of peoples with a urethral mental superstructure are the Tatars, Mongols, Huns, Scythians, and Cumans.

The steppe is a special landscape, endless, wide, expansive lands. For humans, the steppe symbolizes will and freedom not limited by any prohibitions. However, it is also a dangerous space, full of nomadic thugs and thieves. They say about the steppe: in order to feel the vastness of the steppe, you need to ride across it on a fast horse.

Mental urethral values ​​are also reflected in the complementary image of the ideal horseman-warrior, fearless, light and fast, courageous, desperately brave in battle. The cult of the horseman was common among nomadic peoples, which in turn was associated with the cults of the horse, sun, fire and sky. The military history of horse-nomadic peoples is notable for its greatest political and military results. These are people of the greatest military valor, conquerors.

In the New World, a nomadic culture in the strict sense of the word could not be created due to the lack of horses there before the arrival of Europeans. Horses were brought to America in the 16th century, and to Australia in the 18th century.

The urethral leader is a bundle of energy, the owner of hot blood and a four-dimensional libido. The urethral is a manifestation of animal altruism in nature. He is a tactician who ensures the expansion of living space through the development of new lands and horizons. He is passion and fire.

Learning a foreign language is inextricably linked with learning the culture of its native speakers. In turn, the study of culture certainly concerns the national characteristics of the people. By describing certain features of a nation, the specifics of their lifestyle, and their manners of behavior, they talk about national character.

National character is understood as something that is acquired and obtained in the process of contacts within a certain community of people throughout their centuries-old life. These are traditional forms of people’s reaction to the world around them, established norms of behavior and activity.

There are several powerful factors that can significantly influence national character. Among them are the type of society in which people live, the dominant religion, the psychophysiological nature of the nation, as well as the human environment.